There isn't any reason to think something is wrong with his tax returns. We have a federal agency that already went over them. What is wrong is that people who won't vote for him anyway would love to get all the PRIVATE information they can to make more criticisms of his success and achievement. What were the names you called him and his wealth? Filthy??

If you don't need to show a birth certificate to be President, you don't need to show a tax return. The double standard is pathetic. If full disclosure was some kind of requirement, what happened in 2008?

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, in 1967, ahead of his presidential campaign, who released 12 years of tax returns, saying, when explaining why so many years he released, "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show." That was Mitt’s father, George Romney.

I suppose he doesn't have to release these records, but the clamor for him to do so will be become louder and louder and LOUDER.

"I don’t know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account," end-quote. That’s originally a comment made by Romney’s former Republican presidential rival, Newt Gingrich.

"In 1994, (Mitts) Romney vigorously called for then Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to release his tax returns, in order to prove that he had “nothing to hide”

I'm not, nor is anyone else accusing him of doing anything illegal, but what is Romney hiding?

The winner ran on a couple of phony autobiographies and a sixth of a term as a junior senator. We can check the record but I don't recall you or any other supporter pushing for more documents. What a joke.

What part of your voting decision will hinge on his private tax returns? None of it is my guess. The Swiss known for their banking, what's the point of exposing a bank account that isn't where you and I bank? Nothing except to embarrass him to the small minded. Newt said it so it is an okay criticism? Newt said quite a bit that isn't very flattering to Obama too, lol.

"the clamor for him to do so will be become louder and louder and LOUDER"

Yes, the won't be clamoring about JOB GROWTH this election season. Just shiny objects, over there!

We will see.... I predict if he doesn't, and soon, fully disclose, it will begin to haunt him. Voters will care....

It IS relevant. Besides high school/college grades which aren't relevant, Obama unlike Romney, offered full disclosure. No more documents were necessary. In contrast, the average guy doesn't have "Swiss Bank Accounts" or accounts in the Cayman Islands. Kinda hard to relate or even understand.

By the way, Obama did serve three terms in the Illinois State Legislature. A "sixth of a term" in the U.S. Senate? I thought he served nearly four years out of six or nearly 2/3rd's of his U.S. Senate term?

I'm not knocking Romney's record. Heck, I like his record while he was governor.

What the hell is wrong with a Swiss bank account? Hell, DBI had one to facilitate business in Europe-- until the US authorities badgered the Swiss so much the bank closed accounts like ours down. Now we are fuct up the anus with all kinds of stupid transaction fees

Obama announced for the presidency 18 months after entering the Senate.

And if you think he disclosed or the media pushed him for disclosure on the plethora of wild, weird, and radical things and associates in his background , , ,

"Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) flatly told CNN Thursday that Romney needed to make at least six years’ worth of returns public — and soon.

“I think he should release his financial records and I think if he does it in July it would be a lot better than in October,” Jones said. “Whenever you are asking for the vote of the American people that you need to fully disclose what your holdings are, if you have any.”

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who considered running against Romney in the Republican primaries and advises the conservative American Crossroads on its election strategy, said this week that he saw value in disclosure as well.

Barbour told CNN Tuesday that he would release the returns if he was in Romney’s shoes.“I would. But should it be an issue in the campaign? I don’t think it amounts to diddly.”

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele also called on Romney to release additional returns on MSNBC this week, reasoning that it would put Democratic attacks to rest. The Obama campaign highlighted Steele’s quote in a web video on Romney’s Cayman Islands and Bermuda assets.

"For 2010, the Romneys enjoyed a federal tax rate of only 13.9% on their adjusted gross income of roughly $22 million, which gave them a lower federal tax burden (including payroll, income and excise taxes) than the average American wage-earning family in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. The principal reason for this munificently low tax rate is that much of Romney's income, even today, comes from "carried interest," which is just the jargon used by the private equity industry for compensation received for managing other people's money."

The vast majority of tax scholars and policy experts agree that awarding a super-low tax rate to this one form of labor income is completely unjustified as a policy matter. Romney has not explained how, as president, he can bring objectivity to bear on this tax loophole that is estimated as costing all of us billions of dollars every year.

The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation by Romney of how his wealth was accumulated, where it is now invested, what purpose is served by all the various offshore vehicles in which he has an interest and what his financial relationship with Bain Capital has been since his retirement from the company.

Can a President seeking re-election with a stagnant economy and high unemployment really be winning the jobs argument against a man who backed hundreds of thriving businesses? Can a President who sank taxpayer dollars into green-energy failures now succeed by attacking an opponent who funded winning start-ups with his own money?

Yes, President Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney and the company he founded, Bain Capital, are deceptive and hypocritical. But Team Romney is compounding the damage from this character assault by conceding too much of the Obama critique.

Related Video Assistant editorial page editor James Freeman on what argument Mitt Romney should be making on Bain Capital. Photo: Associated Press..When attacked for "outsourcing jobs," the Romney camp responds by saying that Mr. Obama does it, too. Or the Romney campaign suggests that their candidate had already left the firm to save the Olympics when Bain was doing all the really bad stuff. Thus the trivial back-and-forth over when he really, finally, left Bain for good.

Tuesday's Romney response was that Mr. Obama has collected more than $100,000 in contributions from Bain employees even as he has viciously attacked them.

This is a fair (if still insufficient) point, and the Romney campaign could add that the President may have benefited himself from Bain capitalism. Firms like Bain may have helped pay Mr. Obama's salary when he taught law at the University of Chicago. While he was a professor there, the school ramped up its investments in private equity, enjoyed outsize returns and, according to a 2000 article in Pensions and Investments magazine, was a limited partner in more than 80 private-equity funds. The school won't say whether Bain funds were among them.

But the next time Mr. Obama talks on the campaign trail about his rise from humble roots, he might also express some gratitude to the Mitt Romneys whose private-equity investments helped to build university endowments and thus helped underwrite Mr. Obama's career in academia. Those same endowments have also helped pay for the education of thousands of middle-class students.

***In any event, hitting Mr. Obama for his hypocrisy still won't win the argument, if both men merely share the blame for acts of capitalism committed by Bain. Instead, Mr. Romney should enthusiastically defend Bain, and the job-creating contrast with Obamanomics that it represents. Did Bain have to cut some jobs as it built companies that ultimately created many more jobs? Yes, but its companies created more than they lost, and this dynamic spirit of improvement and enterprise represents a far better path to prosperity than the government-directed, political investing of Mr. Obama.

Mr. Romney can happily claim credit for Bain's entire impressive history, rather than just the period through 1999. He has every right to do so as the company's founder. And it will help illuminate the basic difference between his Bain career and the President's 3.5 years running America's economic policy to deliver 8.2% unemployment.

Mr. Romney's Bain worked so well that it became the model for an entire industry. Mr. Romney helped create Staples, a start-up that worked and created tens of thousands of jobs. Mr. Obama financed Solyndra, which did not work. Neither did Abound Solar. The many Obama alternative-energy ventures play in different market segments, but they struggle for the same reason: They serve political agendas more than customers.

Mr. Romney has attacked Mr. Obama's Solyndra investment in particular, but he hasn't linked it consistently to the President's failed model of government-led investing or contrasted it with the successful culture Mr. Romney built at Bain.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press .What Bain did is what all successful organizations do: Seek to deliver products and services that are better, faster, cheaper. In some instances that means fewer employees, even if Mr. Obama still can't or won't grasp the concept that we live in a competitive world. How many readers of this editorial have jobs today because the founders of their companies figured out how to spend more money on a slower manufacturing process to create goods of lower quality?

***Overall, Bain capitalism means more successes than failures, and many more jobs. In March of this year, the managing directors of Bain Capital wrote to their investors and reported that, over the firm's 28 years, companies backed by Bain have grown their revenues more than twice as fast "as both the S&P and the U.S. economy."

The managers went on to note that after Bain invested, companies have grown their revenues by more than $105 billion globally, including $80 billion in the United States. Bain-backed companies, they added, have opened more than 5,000 stores and facilities during their ownership.

Mr. Romney may have thought that debating Bain was a distraction from focusing on the failed Obama economy. But with Mr. Obama using Bain as his main argument against Mr. Romney's record as a job creator, the Republican has no choice but to fight back or he'll lose the election. Americans will choose Bain capitalism over Solyndra crony capitalism, if Mr. Romney makes the case.

The 'drumbeat' looks like it's the same three people. I still don't see where Romney acquired the July 19 deadline that he allegedly missed, lol. The drumbeat line JDN took from my Elizabeth Warren post, but the analogy fails. Her deadline is everyday to correct her outright lie. Romney, as far as we know, did nothing wrong.

The witch hunt from Bachmann is offensive but a witch hunt serves the right political purposes, well that is different. Romney is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The charge sounds like a dictionary definition of un-American.

Dick Morris is partly right. Romney needs to answer persuasively. The problem is that when he does he is on defense instead of on message.

Morris, like Dems, screws up the term outsourcing. Every company of size has a purchasing department and they outsource, not a bad word. I outsourced the ingredients of my lunch today. I think they mean offshore, the verb, to send the jobs outside the US. Still, nothing bad about that either if you believe the U.S. can compete just fine in a healthy global economy.

The WSJ wrote years ago (paraphrasing), globalization is both a) inevitable and b) beneficial. If you disagree with b), please see point a).

Romney to VFW, skipping intro: ...Just consider some of the challenges I discussed at your last national convention:

Since then, has the American economy recovered?

Has our ability to shape world events been enhanced, or diminished?

Have we gained greater confidence among our allies, and greater respect from our adversaries?

And, perhaps most importantly, has the most severe security threat facing America and our friends, a nuclear-armed Iran, become more or less likely?

These clear measures are the ultimate tests of American leadership. And, by these standards, we haven’t seen much in the President’s first term that inspires confidence in a second.

The President’s policies have made it harder to recover from the deepest recession in seventy years … exposed the military to cuts that no one can justify … compromised our national-security secrets … and in dealings with other nations, given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved, and apology where it is not due.

From Berlin to Cairo to the United Nations, President Obama has shared his view of America and its place among nations. I have come here today to share mine.

I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country. I am not ashamed of American power. I take pride that throughout history our power has brought justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict, and hope where there was affliction and despair. I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced. I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, and that our influence is needed as much now as ever. And I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion: This century must be an American Century.

In 1941, Henry Luce called on his countrymen – just then realizing their strength – “to create the first great American century.” And they succeeded: together with their allies, they won World War II, they rescued Europe, they defeated Communism, and America took its place as leader of the free world. Across the globe, they fought, they bled, they led. They showed the world the extraordinary courage of the American heart and the generosity of the American spirit.

That courage and generosity remains unchanged today. But sadly, this president has diminished American leadership, and we are reaping the consequences. The world is dangerous, destructive, chaotic. And the two men running to be your commander-in-chief must offer their answers to the challenges we face.

Like a watchman in the night, we must remain at our post – and keep guard of the freedom that defines and ennobles us, and our friends. In an American Century, we have the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, we secure peace through our strength. And if by absolute necessity we must employ it, we must wield our strength with resolve. In an American Century, we lead the free world and the free world leads the entire world.

If we do not have the strength or vision to lead, then other powers will take our place, pulling history in a very different direction. A just and peaceful world depends on a strong and confident America. I pledge to you that if I become commander-in-chief, the United States of America will fulfill its duty, and its destiny.

American leadership depends, as it always has, on our economic strength, on our military strength, and on our moral strength. If any of these falter, no skill of diplomacy or presidential oratory can compensate. Today, the strength of our economy is in jeopardy.

A healthy American economy is what underwrites American power. When growth is missing, government revenue falls, social spending rises, and many in Washington look to cut defense spending as an easy out. That includes our current President.

Today, we are just months away from an arbitrary, across-the-board budget reduction that would saddle the military with a trillion dollars in cuts, severely shrink our force structure, and impair our ability to meet and deter threats. Don’t bother trying to find a serious military rationale behind any of this, unless that rationale is wishful thinking. Strategy is not driving President Obama’s massive defense cuts. In fact, his own Secretary of Defense warned that these reductions would be “devastating.” And he is right.

That devastation starts at home. These cuts would only weaken an already stretched VA system and impair our solemn commitment that every veteran receives care second to none. I will not allow that to happen.

This is not the time for the President’s radical cuts in the military. Look around the globe. Other major powers are rapidly adding to their military capabilities, some with intentions very different from ours. The regime in Tehran is drawing closer to developing a nuclear weapon. The threat of radical Islamic terrorism persists. The threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation is ever-present. And we are still at war and still have uniformed men and women in conflict.

All this and more is ongoing in the world. And yet the President has chosen this moment for wholesale reductions in the nation’s military capacity. When the biggest announcement in his last State of the Union address on improving our military was that the Pentagon will start using more clean energy – then you know it’s time for a change.

We’re not the first people to observe this. It is reported that Bob Gates, the President’s first secretary of defense, bluntly addressed another security problem within this administration. After secret operational details of the bin Laden raid were given to reporters, Secretary Gates walked into the West Wing and told the Obama team to “shut up.” He added a colorful word for emphasis.

Lives of American servicemen and women are at stake. But astonishingly, the administration failed to change its ways. More top-secret operations were leaked, even some involving covert action in Iran.

This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a national security crisis. And yesterday, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, quote, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.”

This conduct is contemptible. It betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field. And it demands a full and prompt investigation by a special counsel, with explanation and consequence. Obama appointees, who are accountable to President Obama’s Attorney General, should not be responsible for investigating the leaks coming from the Obama White House.

Whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished. The time for stonewalling is over.

It is not enough to say the matter is being looked into, and leave it at that. When the issue is the political use of highly sensitive national security information, it is unacceptable to say, “We’ll report our findings after Election Day.”

Exactly who in the White House betrayed these secrets? Did a superior authorize it? These are things that Americans are entitled to know – and they are entitled to know right now. If the President believes – as he said last week – that the buck stops with him, then he owes all Americans a full and prompt accounting of the facts.

And let me make this very clear: These events make the decision we face in November all the more important. What kind of White House would reveal classified material for political gain? I’ll tell you right now: Mine won’t.

The harm done when national security secrets are betrayed extends, of course, to the trust that allies place in the United States.

The operating principle of American foreign policy has been to work with our allies so that we can deter aggression before it breaks out into open conflict. That policy depends on nurturing our alliances and standing up for our common values.

Yet the President has moved in the opposite direction.

It began with the sudden abandonment of friends in Poland and the Czech Republic. They had courageously agreed to provide sites for our anti-missile systems, only to be told, at the last hour, that the agreement was off. As part of the so-called reset in policy, missile defenses were sacrificed as a unilateral concession to the Russian government.

If that gesture was designed to inspire good will from Russia, it clearly missed the mark. The Russian government defended the dictator in Damascus, arming him as he slaughtered the Syrian people.

We can only guess what Vladimir Putin makes of the Obama administration. He regained the Russian presidency in a corrupt election, and for that, he got a congratulatory call from the Oval Office. And then there was that exchange picked up by a microphone that President Obama didn’t know was on. We heard him asking Dmitry Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to give him “space.” “This is my last election,” President Obama said, and “After my election I’ll have more flexibility.”

Why is flexibility with Russian leaders more important than transparency to the American people?

President Obama had a moment of candor, however, just the other day. He said that the actions of the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez have not had a serious national security impact on us. In my view, inviting Hezbollah into our hemisphere is severe, serious, and a threat.

But at least he was consistent. After all, this is the president who faltered when the Iranian people were looking for support in their struggle against the ayatollahs. That uprising was treated as an inconvenient problem for the President’s policy of engagement, instead of as a moral and strategic opportunity. That terrible misjudgment should never be repeated. When unarmed women and men in Tehran find the courage to confront their oppressors, at risk of torture and death, they should hear the unequivocal voice of an American president affirming their right to be free.

I will leave Reno this evening on a trip abroad that will take me to England, Poland, and Israel. And since I wouldn’t venture into another country to question American foreign policy, I will tell you right here – before I leave – what I think of this administration’s shabby treatment of one of our finest friends.

President Obama is fond of lecturing Israel’s leaders. He was even caught by a microphone deriding them. He has undermined their position, which was tough enough as it was. And even at the United Nations, to the enthusiastic applause of Israel’s enemies, he spoke as if our closest ally in the Middle East was the problem.

The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world. And the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of the President of the United States.

There are values, causes, and nations that depend on American strength, on the clarity of our purpose, and on the reliability of our commitments. There is work in this world that only America and our allies can do, hostile powers that only we can deter, and challenges that only we can overcome.

For the past decade, among those challenges has been the war in Afghanistan. As commander-in-chief, I will have a solemn duty to our men and women in uniform. A president owes our troops, their families, and the American people a clear explanation of our mission, and a commitment not to play politics with the decisions of war.

I have been critical of the President’s decision to withdraw the surge troops during the fighting season, against the advice of the commanders on the ground. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat.

As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and solicit the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

We face another continuing challenge in a rising China. China is attentive to the interests of its government – but it too often disregards the rights of its people. It is selective in the freedoms it allows; and, as with its one-child policy, it can be ruthless in crushing the freedoms it denies. In conducting trade with America, it permits flagrant patent and copyright violations … forestalls American businesses from competing in its market … and manipulates its currency to obtain unfair advantage. It is in our mutual interest for China to be a partner for a stable and secure world, and we welcome its participation in trade. But the cheating must finally be brought to a stop. President Obama hasn’t done it and won’t do it. I will.

We’ll need that same clarity of purpose and resolve in the Middle East. America cannot be neutral in the outcome there. We must clearly stand for the values of representative government, economic opportunity, and human rights. And we must stand against the extension of Iranian or jihadist influence.

Egypt is at the center of this historical drama. In many ways, it has the power to tip the balance in the Arab world toward freedom and modernity. As president, I will not only direct the billions in assistance we give to Egypt toward that goal, but I will also work with partner nations to place conditions on their assistance as well. Unifying our collective influence behind a common purpose will foster the development of a government that represents all Egyptians, maintains peace with Israel, and promotes peace throughout the region. The United States is willing to help Egypt support peace and prosperity, but we will not be complicit in oppression and instability.

There is no greater danger in the world today than the prospect of the ayatollahs in Tehran possessing nuclear weapons capability. Yet for all the talks and conferences, all of the extensions and assurances, can anyone say we are farther from this danger now than four years ago?

The same ayatollahs who each year mark a holiday by leading chants of “Death to America” are not going to be talked out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. What’s needed is all the firmness, clarity, and moral courage that we and our allies can gather. Sanctions must be enforced without exception, cutting off the regime’s sources of wealth. Negotiations must secure full and unhindered access for inspections. As it is, the Iranian regime claims the right to enrich nuclear material for supposedly peaceful purposes. This claim is discredited by years of deception. A clear line must be drawn: There must be a full suspension of any enrichment, period.

And at every turn, Iran must know that the United States and our allies stand as one in these critical objectives. Only in this way can we successfully counter the catastrophic threat that Iran presents. I pledge to you and to all Americans that if I become commander-in-chief, I will use every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region, and to prevent the worst from happening while there is still time.

It is a mistake – and sometimes a tragic one – to think that firmness in American foreign policy can bring only tension or conflict. The surest path to danger is always weakness and indecision. In the end, it is resolve that moves events in our direction, and strength that keeps the peace.

I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world. We must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose, and resolve in our might.

This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.

The 21st century can and must be an American Century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

Fewer members of the Greatest Generation are with us today – and they can’t hold the torch as high as they have in the past. We must now seize the torch they carried so gallantly and at such sacrifice. It is an eternal torch of decency, freedom and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty – and honor – to hold it high enough so that all the world can see its light.

Romney and the Olympics: What the SLC Games say about a Mitt Romney presidency

By Lisa Riley Roche , Deseret News July 25 2012(excerpts)"Both supporters and critics of Romney's three years as the CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee say his experiences in Utah offer insights into what he would bring to the White House. "..."Romney's expertise is data-driven analysis."..."Bullock, who was Romney’s No. 2 at SLOC as chief operating officer of the Olympics, said Romney has had to tone down his personality since throwing his hat in the ring."...“I wish the rest of the world knew Mitt as we did,” Bullock said. “He’s just a blast to be around.”;;;“I always found him very unique because he was a leader and an executive."...“If he ever got in the White House, that would absolutely mirror what he did in the Games,” Eynon said. “When Mitt says he would cut nonessential things … I would take him at his word.” ..."Gillespie said Romney’s ability to focus on what’s important and give up what isn't, no matter how much pressure there may be not to, will win over voters." ...

Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who’s heading the planning for Romney’s transition to the White House, said the results of the Olympics speak for themselves.

“Discouragement was replaced by belief. The $400 million deficit was replaced by a $100 million surplus. The 2002 Winter Olympic Games are widely respected as among the best ever put on,” Leavitt said.

Romney accomplished this, he said, by applying the principles learned at Harvard Business School and put in practice building a personal fortune estimated at $250 million: Start with tearing apart the books and bringing in experts from both the finance and Olympic world.

"I heard Mitt over and over again giving a speech talking about the need to separate 'want-to-haves' from 'need-to-haves.' He set clear priorities, made hard decisions and stuck with them."

John Adams once said, "facts are stubborn things." These days, another Massachusetts politician has found that saying to ring especially true.While it's still unclear how Mitt Romney can be the CEO, chairman, president and sole shareholder of Bain Capital, a company that he claims no responsibility for, it's become increasingly evident that candidate Romney simply doesn't want to talk about the facts of his business record.In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Romney suggested that to question his experiences is to "attack success." If this is the case, and if we're also not supposed to talk above a whisper about Mitt's record as governor, including his signature accomplishment in health care reform, then which parts of his biography remain on the table?

Donna BrazileRomney clearly prefers his largely undisclosed experiences in the private sector over his publicly poor record in Boston. At every turn, Romney and his campaign have attempted to steer the discussion toward business matters for just this reason.John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012?But when the Washington Post took him up on it last month and published an article headlined "Romney's Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas," the Romney campaign was caught flatfooted. The Post found that Bain Capital, the firm Romney spent much of his professional life building up, had invested in companies that had not only shipped jobs overseas -- a practice of some concern to working- and middle-class Americans -- but had pioneered the practice. Romney defends Bain departure date More questions on Romney's Bain tenureRomney's campaign pushed back hard, claiming that the Post had its facts wrong. The campaign met with the Post's editors and demanded a retraction, claiming that Romney had left Bain in 1999, supposedly before the outsourcing investment began. The Washington Post listened to the Romney side of the story but stood its ground.Now we know why. The Boston Globe reported two weeks ago that Romney had signed official documents claiming to be the president and CEO of Bain Capital as late as 2002, when the company was actively building up firms that outsourced American jobs. He didn't just say this casually at some dinner party; he swore it was the truth on Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

What did the Romney campaign do this time? It hit the "repeat" button and demanded a retraction from the Globe. Who are you going to believe, the campaign asked its hometown paper, me or your lying eyes? Once again, the investigative journalists stood by their reporting.Since the Globe story, the hits have kept coming. The AP reported this week that Romney stayed in "regular contact" with Bain during his so-called absence, "personally signing or approving a series of corporate and legal documents through the spring of 2001." Several sources are now saying that Romney made repeated trips to Boston to meet with Bain executives during this period, even though he recently told CBS's Jan Crawford that he doesn't "recall even coming back once to go to a Bain or a management meeting" during the period in question.

So despite what the Romney campaign claims, media interest in this story has nothing to do with attacking personal success in the private sector. It has nothing to do with avoiding the real issues of the campaign.It has everything to do with attempting to get to the bottom of a situation in which what a candidate is saying seems to have come unglued from the stubborn facts.Opinion: Why won't Romney release more tax returns?

Americans know that a level playing field empowers a successful economy. You want to talk about soaking the rich? Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, paid an effective tax rate of nearly 37% in 1967. The elder Romney didn't complain and released his tax returns to prove his compliance with the law of the land he wanted to lead. In 2010, Mitt Romney's tax rate bobbed and weaved its way below 15% -- and we know that only because the public had to pry his return (he has released only a full one) out of his clenched hands.

Even more fascinating than the fact that Romney's father released 12 years' worth when he ran for president in 1968 is the reason why. "One year could be a fluke," the elder Romney said, "perhaps done for show."

This country has a noble habit of withholding elected office from people who have trouble with the facts. Romney could end these discussions overnight by releasing his tax returns, as he has been called on to do by Republicans like Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.Until he makes peace with the facts, Romney will be stuck at the intersection of what is both a character issue and a policy issue. If Romney won't stand by his record at Bain, just like he won't stand by his record as governor of Massachusetts, how exactly is the American public supposed to evaluate the candidate? And if he won't disclose his own relationship with tax loopholes and offshore tax havens, leaving voters more questions than answers, how can the American people trust him to reform our tax code in a way that closes loopholes, eliminates free-riding and ensures that everyone is playing by the same rules?

Facts and the Romney campaign have a difficult relationship these days. But they do share one thing in common: They're both stubborn.

There seems to b e a misconception, Romney is running for President of Bain Capital, been there done that. Were you going to reply on what is the minimum number of years of tax returns made public required by law to be President and their exact deadlines he seems to have missed? You've added Donna Bazille to the list of people who won't vote for him until he releases at least 4, 6 or was it 12 returns? Funny.

If Hillary went all the way back honestly without a statute of limitation she would be an options trading felon. And no one cares. Not running for President? Well she was.

"Romney could end these discussions overnight by releasing his tax returns"

That just isn't so, is it?

Romney's tax returns will tell you what tax policy was and some implications of it at the time of the returns. You should already know that or else that information is available elswhere. There is no reason to believe he hasn't followed all applicable laws or missed any reporting requirements to the various agencies.

Unlike the Senator who was the 60th vote to pass Obamacare, Al Franken, who owed taxes in 17 states amounting to over $50,000 or the Obama's Secretary of the Treasury who had filed wrong in 10 years of returns counting 4 years wrong twice.

Like the Registrar of Records for Hawaiian birth records, maybe some middle level IRS manger can certify that the former Governor is up to snuff on his returns and payments. Would that satisfy you? No.

He's running for POTUS. You have to be 40 and a natural born citizen. Do you have any questions of him as to what he might do as President?

Several of Dem party hack Donna Bazille's assertions have been given Pinochio Awards for quite some time now. There is no way she does not know any better-- which simply means , , , Given the closeness with which you follow these matters, , ,

Deception and distraction are what they sell. Economic disaster is what you buy if you buy it. At their very best they can accuse opponents of exactly what they are doing in plain sight, whether it is false context or refusing full disclosure.

If you already posted why my version of the facts is wrong or anything that supports your version of the facts, I missed it. Are the other 192 nations in the United Nations all legitimate and just Israel is illegitimate?

If your story is right and they are the worst of 193 nations, why stop at denying them a capital? Obama is bragging that he, in the first person, has given them record levels of aid. If they are an illegal nation, why have an embassy at all? Why not cut off trade? Cut off aid. Kick them out of the UN if they are illegitimate in borders and actions. But Obama proposes none of that. Why not? He wants it both ways. Being deceitful is complicated.

Mitt Romney, the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee, delivered a stem-winder of a speech to the Jerusalem Foundation yesterday, packing emotional support with frank policy statements. The contrast with Obama could hardly be more dramatic. Indeed, one could go through the speech and note the many refutations of Obama. For example, the opening comment that “To step foot into Israel is to step foot into a nation that began with an ancient promise made in this land” directly contrasts with Obama’s crabbed statement in Cairo about “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland [being] rooted in a tragic history.”

Also, in contrast to the nonsensical Obama administration stance on Jerusalem being Israel’s capital — sneaking into change captions that mistakenly identified it as that and going through verbal gymnastics to avoid calling it that — Romney came out and plainly called Jerusalem “the capital of Israel.”

Many of his statements are paeans to the Jewish state and its extraordinary ties to the United States. Some quotations, with my italics on the key words in each quotation:

Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel. . . .

It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States. . . .

We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again. It would be foolish not to take Iran’s leaders at their word. They are, after all, the product of a radical theocracy. … We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.

. . . our alliance runs deeper than the designs of strategy or the weighing of interests. The story of how America – a nation still so new to the world by the standards of this ancient region – rose up to become the dear friend of the people of Israel is among the finest and most hopeful in our nation’s history. Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another.

. . . the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: it is a force for good in the world. America’s support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. . . . A free and strong America will always stand with a free and strong Israel. . . .

By history and by conviction, our two countries are bound together. No individual, no nation, no world organization, will pry us apart. And as long as we stay together and stand together, there is no threat we cannot overcome and very little that we cannot achieve.

But of the whole speech, it is the final words that most struck me: “May God bless America, and may He bless and protect the Nation of Israel.” When last did a politician ask the Lord to protect another country?

Comments: (1) Obama and Romney stand as far apart on Israel as they do on the sources of economic growth. (2) Over and over again, Romney returned to the moral bonds between the two countries; yes, there are mutual benefits from our connection, but ultimately it reflects something higher and greater than any of us. (3) If he is elected, it will be fascinating to watch to what extent the outlook expressed today will translate to the workaday policy issues. I expect it will have a substantial effect.

Doug I have clearly said Israel, as a country, is legitimate. However if Israel says Jeruselum is their capital THAT is illegitimate. ALL countries seem to agree that Jeruselum is NOT the legitimate capital of Israel. Got it?

Given the state of the economy, beating Obama should be like shooting a sitting duck. But Romney is a buffoon. Too bad the Republicans couldn't find someone better. Romney may still win, but it will be in spite of himself, not because of himself.

"...Israel...a leader of human civilization, technological progress, and scientific advance. Tiny Israel stands behind only the United States in its contributions to the hi-tech economy. Israel has become the world's paramount example of the blessings of freedom." Then he backs it up with data and examples.

To JDN and Mr. Shrum, there IS a cultural difference.

I'll post the two excellent Romney speeches separately.

Must admit Shrum knows his losing Presidential campaigns though. He holds the all time record for running them. Pres. Gephart, Dukakis, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, John Kerry, critics often point out a "curse" associated with the presidential campaigns that Shrum has worked on, since he has yet to claim victory for any of his candidates in eight presidential elections.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9895-2004Sep9.html

The Romney Foreign Tour He commits the Washington error of telling the truth. .Article Video Comments (115) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.2EmailPrintSave ↓ More ..smaller Larger So Mitt Romney's foreign tour has ended, and the media verdict is that it rated somewhere between an embarrassment and a fiasco. We guess that's one way to describe a trip that garnered virtual endorsements from Israel's Prime Minister and Poland's most famous citizen, raked in $1 million or so in campaign cash, and gave the presumptive GOP nominee a chance to lay out a foreign-policy agenda.

Granted, this is a trip that got off on the wrong foot. Many Londoners might privately agree that some of the security preparations for the Olympics were "disconcerting," as Mr. Romney put it in an interview, but they didn't need a traveling American politician to tell them.

Yet one definition of a gaffe is to tell the truth, and that's certainly the case with Mr. Romney's other supposed mistakes, this time in Israel. One was to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Another was to talk tough on Iran. The third was to suggest—egads!—that Israeli and Palestinian culture might have something to do with the respective state of their economies.

Related Video Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on Mitt Romney's remark that culture explains Israel's economic success and Palestine's poverty. Photos: Associated Press..Jerusalem is the capital of Israel—the seat of its government, the home of its President and Prime Minister, the location of its parliament and supreme court. That's true even if the U.S. State Department puts its embassy in Tel Aviv.

The tough talk on Iran was no different from what Mr. Romney—or President Obama—has been saying for years. At least Mr. Romney showed that he understood that Tehran is a dedicated and fanatical enemy of Israel and the U.S., not a misunderstood nation seeking a better bargain from the West. Too bad Mr. Obama didn't demonstrate the same realism about the mullahs four years ago.

As for Mr. Romney's observations about "culture"—denounced as "racist" by one Palestinian spokesman—it's worth noting that forward-looking Palestinians are also seeking to emulate Israel's culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. The pity for Palestinians is a political culture in which Hamas is a dominating force, economic co-operation with Israelis is called "collaboration" and often punished by death, and children are reared to think of terrorists as martyrs. If Palestinians now complain of the restrictions Israel imposes on them, perhaps it has something to do with a "culture" they continue to celebrate.

Equally to Mr. Romney's credit was his celebration of Poland both as a role model for defying political tyranny during the Cold War and for its economic policies ever since. "A march toward economic liberty and smaller government has meant a march toward higher living standards," he said in Warsaw, one of the rare European capitals that has lived within its means and not tipped into a sovereign debt crisis.

That's another statement of the obvious that rankles in Washington because it's true, and because it is so markedly at odds with America's own economic mismanagement.

A version of this article appeared August 1, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Romney Foreign Tour.

We are currently in the most anemic economic recovery in the memory of most Americans. Declining consumer sentiment and business concerns over policy uncertainty weigh on the minds of all of us. We must fix our economy's growth and jobs machine.

We can do this. The U.S. economy has the talent, ideas, energy and capital for the robust economic growth that has characterized much of America's experience in our lifetimes. Our standard of living and the nation's standing as a world power depend on restoring that growth.

But to do so we must have vastly different policies aimed at stopping runaway federal spending and debt, reforming our tax code and entitlement programs, and scaling back costly regulations. Those policies cannot be found in the president's proposals. They are, however, the core of Gov. Mitt Romney's plan for economic recovery and renewal.

In response to the recession, the Obama administration chose to emphasize costly, short-term fixes—ineffective stimulus programs, myriad housing programs that went nowhere, and a rush to invest in "green" companies.

As a consequence, uncertainty over policy—particularly over tax and regulatory policy—slowed the recovery and limited job creation. One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty reduced GDP by 1.4% in 2011 alone, and that returning to pre-crisis levels of uncertainty would add about 2.3 million jobs in just 18 months.

The Obama administration's attempted short-term fixes, even with unprecedented monetary easing by the Federal Reserve, produced average GDP growth of just 2.2% over the past three years, and the consensus outlook appears no better for the year ahead.

Moreover, the Obama administration's large and sustained increases in debt raise the specter of another financial crisis and large future tax increases, further chilling business investment and job creation. A recent study by Ernst & Young finds that the administration's proposal to increase marginal tax rates on the wage, dividend and capital-gain income of upper-income Americans would reduce GDP by 1.3% (or $200 billion per year), kill 710,000 jobs, depress investment by 2.4%, and reduce wages and living standards by 1.8%. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the large deficits codified in the president's budget would reduce GDP during 2018-2022 by between 0.5% and 2.2% compared to what would occur under current law.

President Obama has ignored or dismissed proposals that would address our anti-competitive tax code and unsustainable trajectory of federal debt—including his own bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—and submitted no plan for entitlement reform. In February, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner famously told congressional Republicans that this administration was putting forth no plan, but "we know we don't like yours."

Other needed reforms would emphasize opening global markets for U.S. goods and services—but the president has made no contribution to the global trade agenda, while being dragged to the support of individual trade agreements only recently.

The president's choices cannot be ascribed to a political tug of war with Republicans in Congress. He and Democratic congressional majorities had two years to tackle any priority they chose. They chose not growth and jobs but regulatory expansion. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act raised taxes, unleashed significant new spending, and raised hiring costs for workers. The Dodd-Frank Act missed the mark on housing and "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions but raised financing costs for households and small and mid-size businesses.

These economic errors and policy choices have consequences—record high long-term unemployment and growing ranks of discouraged workers. Sadly, at the present rate of job creation and projected labor-force growth, the nation will never return to full employment.

It doesn't have to be this way. The Romney economic plan would fundamentally change the direction of policy to increase GDP and job creation now and going forward. The governor's plan puts growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:

• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.

• Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.

• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.

In contrast to the sclerosis and joblessness of the past three years, the Romney plan offers an economic U-turn in ideas and choices. When bolstered by sound trade, education, energy and monetary policy, the Romney reform program is expected by the governor's economic advisers to increase GDP growth by between 0.5% and 1% per year over the next decade. It should also speed up the current recovery, enabling the private sector to create 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month, or about 12 million new jobs in a Romney first term, and millions more after that due to the plan's long-run growth effects.

But these gains aren't just about numbers, as important as those numbers are. The Romney approach will restore confidence in America's economic future and make America once again a place to invest and grow.

Rubio Ethics Charges: Where There's Smoke...There's No FireBy DICK MORRISPublished on DickMorris.com on August 1, 2012

Printer-Friendly VersionThe phone lines around Romney Headquarters are buzzing with worried campaign operatives wondering if Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the obvious front runner for vice president, should be dropped from consideration because of ethical issues that may surface should he run.

So I looked into them and called the reporter who's been covering them. Here's the story:The two big worries about Rubio appear to be non-starters. He has been very close to two men who are in a lot of trouble, but there is no evidence that any of it has rubbed off on him.Are Middle Class White People Ruining America?That's what one of the most popular financial analysts in the country recently wrote.

When asked if he was serious, this wealthy Floridian said: "Yes, I am. In fact, the evidence is undeniable." He continued...

"I want to show you the most thoroughly researched evidence available to the public. Then you'll see America's problems clearly – in a way that's free of any bias."

"Think carefully about this – because it's going to have major implications for you and your family."

To see the full, and quite controversial, analysis, go here...

Former Florida House Speaker Ray Sansom, who Rubio -- his predecessor as Speaker -- hand-picked to be the House's budget chairman, has been convicted in a corruption probe. But, other than bad judgment in trusting him, it doesn't seem to involve Rubio.

Marco's other close friend -- Florida Republican Congressman David Rivera -- is reportedly under serious federal investigation. Federal investigators say he was "essentially living off" the state Republican Party credit card over the past decade.

Rubio, himself, has been accused of racking up $100,000 in Amex bills on the state card. He paid $16,000 back, apologized for the error, and says the rest is legit. The reporter who broke the story - Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald - says there is no ongoing federal investigation of Rubio over this issue. A complaint with the Florida State Ethics Commission was thrown out last week.

The other issues that surround Rubio are also nickel and dime stuff:

• He took $210,000 in campaign contributions that the Federal Elections Commission said were not legal and he paid a $8,000 fine for doing so. Lots and lots of Senators - most notably former Senator Hillary Clinton - have done a lot worse.

• He double-billed for nine plane trips. Said it was an oversight and paid it back.

• He didn't report a $135,000 home equity loan. Again, he apologized and reported it.

Are these charges enough to keep a charismatic, principled conservative off the ticket? I don't think so.

But the standards for a VP nominee are worse than those for Caesar's wife. Any hint of scandal is enough to make the party operatives run for cover. The rule for any VP choice is the same as the Hippocratic Oath for doctors: "first, do no harm."

It may be that these brush-fires lead the party honchos to run to the nearest boring white man for the nomination. But, where there's smoke, there isn't always fire.

This is the time for VEEP choices. The campaign and media are having some fun with trial balloons, Rubio, Portman, Condaleeza Rice and now Gen. Petraeus. Take your own shot at it, lay out your preference for running mate and your reasons soon - or else no complaining about the choice later. The predictions all seem to be based on what Romney thinks he needs and where he sits in the race when he makes the choice, which is right about now.

They say his favorite surrogate is Pawlenty. Advantage is that as a 2-term Gov and pretty serious candidate himself he already faced the scrutiny. He doesn't bring you his home state or any other state with any certainty. What he brings is a good salesman for Romney and the discussion remains about Romney, not the running mate.

Rubio is my favorite for future President. He is the best orator and spokesman for the cause. He is a big picture visionary for a very young man. Besides wonderfully clear and persuasive explanations, he puts a friendly, non-threatening face on freedom and conservatism. He offers some help attracting or minimizing the damage with Hispanic voters. 2 years in the senate is his drawback though he has a very accomplished Florida background.

Maybe Rubio helps with crucial state Florida and gives a more uplifting speech, maybe Portman helps with Ohio, maybe Jindal makes the picture not so white for anti white racists, but Paul Ryan is the heavyweight in the room if this comes done to arguing the agenda, as it most certainly will.

As suggested elsewhere, this election is a one legged stool - upside down; picture the Eifel Tower. The base is built on economic freedom and the American entrepreneurial spirit connecting throughout a complex grid to the pinnacle which is American strength. There isn't a foreign policy of strength that comes out of a domestic economy of weakness.

This election is either about the economy and an agenda to bring back its greatness, or it about convoluted discussions of arguing sideways and pointing to shiny objects. Romney has to make the case that his agenda, the unread 59 point plan, will grow the economy and create opportunity and prosperity available to everyone. It will, but the question between now and November is whether the sale is made and whether the plan becomes a mandate for real reform. Enter Paul Ryan...---------------http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313326/ryan-rises-robert-costa

These days, you hear it everywhere — from Republican donors and veteran operatives, and at Capitol Hill watering holes. A few weeks ago, it was a wishful rumor floating in the Beltway ether. Now, sources close to the Romney campaign say it’s for real, that the taciturn former Massachusetts governor is quietly warming to the idea.

Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the budget king of the GOP, may be Mitt Romney’s veep.

“Ryan is very highly respected not only by the candidate, but by Romney’s policy shop,” says Tom Rath, a Romney adviser. “Beyond the political relationship, he has a good personal relationship with Romney, and he has been a strong and reliable surrogate since the primary.”

For months, Ryan has been considered a dark horse for the number-two spot. At age 42, he has accomplished much, such as winning seven straight congressional races and authoring his party’s blueprint for entitlement reform. But his lack of executive experience, and his criticism of the Bay State’s health-care program, made his chances look relatively remote.

Yet behind the scenes, Ryan’s stock has been steadily rising. Romney, a former Bain Capital consultant who relishes data and metrics, has clicked with the youthful Badger State wonk. They have campaigned together and speak frequently on the phone, comparing notes on policy and strategy. And earlier this year, with Ryan’s blessing, Romney hired three of Ryan’s Budget Committee advisers to help him in Boston.

“Romney has spoken out about how we can’t let ourselves evolve into an entitlement society, so you can see why Ryan is attracted to Romney,” says former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour. “You can also see why Romney likes Ryan: He’s bright, articulate, and courageous. He’s willing to tell the truth to the American people, and he understands entrepreneurship. He’s also from Wisconsin, which is an important state.”

In late June, National Review Online reported that the Romney campaign was seriously vetting Ryan — and that Ryan had shared paperwork detailing his financial and personal records with a handful of Romney’s Boston-based counselors.

Since then, sources say, Ryan has slowly floated to the top of Romney’s vice-presidential shortlist. In conversations with senior advisers and donors — at the campaign’s summer retreat in Park City, Utah, and at his lakefront home in New Hampshire — Romney has repeatedly expressed his admiration for the Wisconsin lawmaker.

“Having observed Romney and Ryan together at some events, it’s clear they have very good chemistry,” says Charlie Black, an outside adviser to the Romney campaign. “They are philosophically in tune, especially on economic and fiscal policy.”

The Romney-Ryan alliance actually began during the early days of the primary, months before Ryan formally endorsed. Romney was struggling against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, and Ryan offered candid, private advice on numerous occasions, which Romney reportedly appreciated.

Speaking with NRO in late March, a week before Ryan endorsed him, Romney highlighted their political kinship. “We chat on a regular basis,” he said. And on policy, “we’re very much inclined in the same direction.”

Publicly, Ryan has consistently been a loyal soldier — championing Romney’s positions, especially to skeptical conservatives. “He doesn’t need to lay out new policies,” Ryan told NRO last week, when asked about Romney’s specificity. “It’s simply about getting up there and offering a vision, emphasizing the choice between two futures. It’s a counter-narrative, a myth of sorts, that [Romney] hasn’t been specific enough.”

Romney is a low-key, non-ideological nominee who has found Ryan’s support invaluable in maintaining friendly relations with the base. If he were tapped, Ryan would continue to generate conservative enthusiasm for the ticket, and he’d further reinforce Romney’s aura of number-crunching competency.

“We are big fans of Ryan,” says Sal Russo, a strategist for the Tea Party Express. “Ryan learned a lot from the great Jack Kemp,” the late fiscal hawk and the GOP’s 1996 vice-presidential nominee. “And anyone who shares Kemp’s ideas gets an A from me.”

Ryan worked as a speechwriter for Kemp and former Reagan cabinet member Bill Bennett before becoming a top Republican staffer to a couple of senators during the Clinton years. Born and raised into a large, Irish-Catholic family in Janesville, Wis., he returned there in 1998, after his stint as an aide, to run for the House.

Of course, a Ryan pick would come with some potential problems. National Journal recently dubbed him Romney’s “riskiest running mate,” owing to the Democrats’ eagerness to blast Ryan’s entitlement proposals. Conservative leaders also have some reservations about potentially sending one of the House’s leading reformers to the Naval Observatory.

“If I had my druthers, I would hope Romney would pick one of the other options,” says Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a Ryan supporter. “The most important thing in the first year of a Romney administration would be a U-turn on the road to serfdom, and the way to do that is by passing the Ryan budget, which requires a major mover not just at the White House, but in Congress. It’d be easier to do that with Ryan in the House, since he has walked through it already with every Republican.”

Romney, however, may want Ryan to walk through his plan with the country. It would be a bold pick, but if you have been reading the tea leaves, it wouldn’t be a surprise.

Special Report with Bret Baier had a segment on Ryan last night. As always, he impressed. I learned of his time with Jack Kemp, whom he considered a mentor. By my lights this is a very good thing-- Kemp knew how to make free minds and free markets and win-win appeal to regular folks and Ryan has that touch too. My own in-house marketing survey, my wife, resonated to him very well. This is a good sign!

He would have my hearty support.

So too would Rubio!

Pawlenty IMHO would be a very poor choice. Not only was he outdebated by Michelle Bachman he would be seen as a bland, timid, and white bread choice. He would deflate enthusiasm.

The notion of Petraeus intrigues, but next to nothing is known of his position on various issues, his ability to speak, his familiarity with the political process, and so forth.

Crafty: "My own in-house marketing survey, my wife, resonated to him very well. This is a good sign! "

Yes, how they inspire the base and how they received by voters who are more independent are both important. Picking Ryan means he is serious about solving our economic problems. Seldom do you see a real congressional leader put on the ticket by either party. Ryan has been front and center on reform to stand up against the President who has been the antithesis to reform.

It isn't just about winning, but to convey that they know how to govern if they win. If the House,the Executive Branch and 50+ Senators can get on the same page, we are a few cloture votes away from turning this country around.

"The poll also shows that Romney's unfavorability rating has increased since May, when 45% had a negative view of the Republican candidate. According to the poll's release, Romney is "laboring under the lowest personal popularity ratings for a presumptive presidential nominee in midsummer election-year polls back to 1984."

Why Not Paul Ryan? Romney can win a big election over big issues. He'll lose a small one..Article Video Comments (188) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.0EmailPrintSave ↓ More ..smaller Larger The whispering over Mitt Romney's choice of a running mate is getting louder, and along with it we are being treated to the sotto voce angst of the GOP establishment: Whatever else Mitt does, he wouldn't dare pick Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, would he?

Too risky, goes the Beltway chorus. His selection would make Medicare and the House budget the issue, not the economy. The 42-year-old is too young, too wonky, too, you know, serious. Beneath it all you can hear the murmurs of the ultimate Washington insult—that Mr. Ryan is too dangerous because he thinks politics is about things that matter. That dude really believes in something, and we certainly can't have that.

All of which highly recommend him for the job.

We have nothing against the other men Mr. Romney is said to be still closely considering. Tim Pawlenty twice won the governorship of Minnesota, the second time in the horrible GOP year of 2006. His working-class roots and middle American values would counter the stereotype of Mr. Romney as too rich and disconnected to average concerns. The media would say he's another middle-aged white male, just like Mitt, but he'd certainly be a safe, mature choice.

Editorial board member Joe Rago on why Paul Ryan would make a good VP pick. Photo: Getty Images..Ohio Senator Rob Portman is well respected nearly everywhere for his thoughtful, disciplined brand of conservative politics. Like Mr. Pawlenty, he's no orator, but he's quick on his feet and a practiced debater who would carve up Joe Biden. His biggest liability is his association with the Bush Administration. Many voters still blame President Bush for our current economic troubles, and the Obama campaign would use Mr. Portman to reinforce its claim that Mr. Romney is Bush 2.0.

Marco Rubio would be a somewhat riskier choice given that he is new to the national scene and has less Washington experience. But he's a tea party favorite who would energize the GOP base while also signaling Mr. Romney's outreach to Hispanic voters. Mr. Rubio's family history is one of escaping tyranny (Cuba) and poverty, and he speaks movingly about the American Dream.

The case for Mr. Ryan is that he best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election. More than any other politician, the House Budget Chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline.

Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, he has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda—before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp-like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP's new generation of reformers that includes such Governors as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and New Jersey's Chris Christie.

As important, Mr. Ryan can make his case in a reasonable and unthreatening way. He doesn't get mad, or at least he doesn't show it. Like Reagan, he has a basic cheerfulness and Midwestern equanimity.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan..As for Medicare, the Democrats would make Mr. Ryan's budget a target, but then they are already doing it anyway. Mr. Romney has already endorsed a modified version of Mr. Ryan's premium-support Medicare reform, and who better to defend it than the author himself?

Republicans are likely to do worse if they merely play defense on Medicare and other entitlements. The way to win on the issue is go on offense and contrast Mr. Romney's patient-centered reform with President Obama's policy of government price controls and rationing medical care via a 15-member panel of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

***Personalities aside, the larger strategic point is that Mr. Romney's best chance for victory is to make this a big election over big issues. Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to make this a small election over small things—Mitt's taxes, his wealth, Bain Capital. As the last two months have shown, Mr. Romney will lose that kind of election.

To win, Mr. Romney and the Republicans have to rise above those smaller issues and cast the choice as one about the overall direction and future of the country. Americans tell pollsters they are anxious and unhappy precisely because they instinctively know the country is troubled in ways it hasn't been since the 1970s. They know the economy is growing too slowly to raise middle-class incomes, while the government is growing too fast to be affordable.

Above all, Americans are hungry for leadership. They want leaders willing to take on the hard issues, preferably without the rancor and polarization that have defined Mr. Obama's Presidency. But they will reward leaders who succeed despite the rancor, as Wisconsin voters showed by their huge turnout in support of Governor Scott Walker this year.

Whatever doubts Americans may have about Mr. Romney's empathy or background, more of them will turn out for him if they see a leader with a vision and plan worthy of the current difficult moment. This is the kind of candidate and message that voters need to see in the Republican convention this month and into the fall, and it is the message that Mr. Romney's choice of a running mate should reinforce.

The negative to Ryan as a choice it is said is that it ties Romney to Ryan's budget and its specifics, except where he has said he differs.

The problem with that thinking though is that the Obama/Dem camp is tying Romney to the Ryan budget anyway. Might as well run on it as a strength and as an agenda for a mandate and bring on board the person best able to defend it.

If we are to go after Baraq on spending we have to offer specifics. Baraq fears Ryan and Ryan does not fear Baraq. He has extraordinary mastery of the facts and the numbers and excellent communication skills (note the history with Jack Kemp btw). He has what it takes to get in Baraq's face and under his skin.

"If he wins, it's in spite of himself, not because of himself." - JDN, attached to no position on any issue.

Ad hominem (directed at the person), ad nauseum (unpleasurable to the point of nausea).

Do you troll or post opinions on issues? You haven't even said you will vote against the guy. Hundreds of millions are being spent to drive up his negatives and then they poll to ask same people what do you think of his negatives. Then the poll becomes the news story. Not anti-growth, anti-employment policies, just at the person BS.

If the poll is the news story, how about posting the poll internals. How many Dems, how many R's, and now many independents in the "random adult survey"?

Doug, the poll IS the news story. Simply put, Romney isn't liked very much. Personally, I think the guy is just fine.As for my calling him "Mitts" well lots of new publications on the left and right call him Mitts. I don't think it's derogatorynor is it meant to be.

And while I agree, issues are important, many, most? people vote for who they simply "like".So wrong or right, "likability" is very very important.

"In essence, Obama's entire campaign to date has been aimed at taking economic doubts and worry -- which Romney has tried to pin on Obama -- and increasing them by portraying the GOP nominee as a predatory capitalist indifferent to middle class suffering. They now believe Ryan gives them a contemporary policy toehold in Washington to take that argument from the distant past (Bain Capital) and make it a cutting issue in Romney and Ryan's present-day campaign."

Every time I think it through it all comes down to whether there are more people who are tired of supporting the entitlement groups then there are in those groups.

Are there more people who are afraid that Republicanns will take away their benefits, medicare, medicaid, welfare, unempolyment, disability,student aids, housing loans, quotas, etc. vs those who are tired of working like dogs paying for the Demcorat party taxes, regulations, control, etc?

To me this is the question. It all boils down to this. Ideology, future direction of America, freedom, capatilism, tyranny, are certainly all part of it. Yet in the end we are all going to vote our pocket books. So are there more of them (dependents) or us?

Just .... as Mark Levin recently said.

*****

I always knew it could happen here but I guess I didn't think it would. Like we Jews always said about the holocaust, yes it can happen again. Same for marxism.

Progressives just keep moving *forward* - to one world government, secular with total central control of all of us. Every time I hear liberals use that word this IS what is meant.Anyone who thinks otherwise is either in denial or I guess oblivius, not paying careful attention, or dumb.

Mitt Romney: What I Learned at Bain Capital My business experience taught me how to help companies grow—and what to do when trouble arises. When you see a problem, run toward it before the problem gets worse..Article Comments (394) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.27EmailPrintSave ↓ More ..smaller Larger By MITT ROMNEY The back-to-school season is here, and as parents take their children to shop for school supplies, I suspect that many of them will be visiting a Staples store. I'm very familiar with those stores because Staples is one of many businesses we helped create and expand at Bain Capital, a firm that my colleagues and I built. The firm succeeded by growing and fixing companies.

The lessons I learned over my 15 years at Bain Capital were valuable in helping me turn around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. They also helped me as governor of Massachusetts to turn a budget deficit into a surplus and reduce our unemployment rate to 4.7%. The lessons from that time would help me as president to fix our economy, create jobs and get things done in Washington.

A broad message emerges from my Bain Capital days: A good idea is not enough for a business to succeed. It requires a talented team, a good business plan and capital to execute it. That was true of companies we helped start, like Staples and the Bright Horizons child-care provider, and several of the struggling companies we helped turn around, like the Brookstone retailer and the contact-lens maker Wesley Jessen.

My presidency would make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes; replacing Obamacare with real health-care reform that contains costs and improves care; and by stemming the flood of new regulations that are tying small businesses in knots.

My business experience confirmed my belief in empowering people. For example, at Bain Capital we bought Accuride, a company that made truck rims and wheels, because we saw untapped potential there. We instituted performance bonuses for the management team, which had a dramatic impact. The managers made the plants more productive, and the company started growing, adding 300 jobs while Bain was involved. My faith in people, not government, is at the foundation of my plan to strengthen America's middle class.

I also saw firsthand through these investments how energy costs impact the ability of a business to grow. Today, energy costs are weighing on job creators across America because President Obama has limited energy exploration and restricted development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs. I will take a sensible approach to tapping our energy resources, which will both create jobs and make energy more affordable for every sector of our economy.

Enlarge Image

CloseBloomberg .In the 1990s, when the "old-technology" steel industry in the U.S. was failing, Bain Capital helped build a new steel company, Steel Dynamics, which has grown into one of the largest steel producers in America today, holding its own against Chinese producers. The key to its success? State-of-the-art new technology.

Here are two lessons from the Steel Dynamics story: First, innovation is essential to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. We are the most innovative, entrepreneurial nation in the world. To maintain that lead, we must give people the skills to succeed. My plan for a stronger middle class includes policies to give every family access to great schools and quality teachers, to improve access to higher education, and to attract and retain the best talent from around the world.

The second lesson is that we must have a level playing field in international trade. As president, I will challenge unfair trade practices that are harming American workers.

Running a business also brings lessons in tackling challenges. I was on the board of a medical diagnostic-laboratory company, Damon, when a competitor announced that it had settled with the government over a charge of fraudulent Medicare billing. I and fellow Damon outside board members joined together and immediately hired an independent law firm to examine Damon's own practices.

The investigation revealed a need to make some changes, which we did. The company, along with several other clinical-laboratory companies, ended up being fined for billing practices. And a Damon manager who was responsible for the fraud went to jail. The experience taught me that when you see a problem, run toward it or it will only get worse.

That will be my approach to our federal budget problem. I am committed to capping federal spending below 20% of GDP and reducing nondefense discretionary spending by 5%. This will surely result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington. But a failure of leadership has created our debt crisis, and ducking responsibility will only cripple the economy and smother opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

I'm not sure Bain Capital could have grown or turned around some of the companies we invested in had we faced today's anti-business environment. Andy Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, has said that the "current unfriendly economic environment perhaps best explains why American companies are sitting on over $2 trillion which they could invest."

President Obama has piled on excessive regulations, proposed massive tax increases, added more than $5 trillion in federal debt, and failed to address the coming fiscal cliff—all of which is miring our nation in sluggish growth and high unemployment.

I know what it takes to turn around difficult situations. And I will put that experience to work, to get our economy back on track, create jobs, strengthen the middle class and lay the groundwork for America's increased competitiveness in the world.